[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I designed the filters in my experiments with microwave based on antenna theory as shown in the old training videos by Royal Canadian Air Force.

And these are the version of US Air Force

Radio Antenna Fundamentals - Part 1 1947

Radio Antenna Fundamentals - Part 2 1947

[puppypower]

Electrons are elementary particles that have both negative charge and mass.

Electrons have positive mass.

That is what I said, but I phrased it in an unclear way. We live in a mass dominate universe,  so positive mass was implied.

You made a good point about x-rays and gamma rays not being generated by antenna. You indirectly suggested the basis for an experiment to prove that negative charge and mass are integrated and unified via the electron. A complete explanation for light needs to take in account that transitional antenna change within electron/photon properties. This transition is where the mass side of the unity becomes more noticeable; thermal/EM.

A complete explanation for light also needs to take into account the observation that photons can travel at the speed of light, but still show finite distance and time attributes; wavelength and frequency, in our finite reference. These should show the space-time contraction, expected of something moving at the speed of light; Special relativity. 

If we had 10 hypothetical rockets, of different lengths, each sending out pulses at different frequencies; rough simulation of wavelength and frequency, at the speed of light, they will all look the same in our reference. One could not tell the difference. Photons can somehow avoid this, because they have two separate legs; two integrated properties. This is similar to the electron; one particle with two integrated properties.   

 

[Bored chemist]

Since their first discoveries, X-ray and gamma ray have never been explained as the result of oscillating electrons on a conductor. There's no obvious structure that act as transmitting antenna.

No
They were explained as a the result of accelerating a charge.
You don't need an antenna.
You can also do the same thing like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation
or this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laser

The antenna is just one way to achieve the acceleration.

There's no "mystery" to solve here.

[Bored chemist]

You indirectly suggested the basis for an experiment to prove that negative charge and mass are integrated and unified via the electron.

They aren't.
This will remain true no matter how often you post nonsense about it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No
They were explained as a the result of accelerating a charge.
You don't need an antenna.
You can also do the same thing like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation
or this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laser

The antenna is just one way to achieve the acceleration.

There's no "mystery" to solve here.

Thank you for the reference.

In dipole antenna, we can control how the distribution of frequency, as well as emission pattern.
It's not so clear how to control them in synchrotron.

When the electron velocity approaches the speed of light, the emission pattern is sharply collimated forward.



Angular distribution of radiated energy


Frequency distribution of radiated energy

Working of the undulator. 1: magnets, 2: electron beam entering from the upper left, 3: synchrotron radiation exiting to the lower right

Hans Motz and his coworkers at Stanford University demonstrated the first undulator in 1952.[4][5] It produced the first manmade coherent infrared radiation. The design could produce a total frequency range from visible light down to millimeter waves.

I wonder how they managed to arrange magnets alternatingly in merely half microns.

If there's only one electron involved, how many photons would be produced?

[Bored chemist]

It's not so clear how to control them in synchrotron.

They are often considered a problem by people who build synchrotrons as particle accelerators- They spread out in a disk from the places where the beam "turns a corner".

But they are a very nice bright, monochromatic X-ray source which is great for doing crystallography; chemists love them.
I think the medical X-ray people might like them too- any thoughts Alan?

[Just thinking]

What Is The Nature Of Photons & EM Radiation?

As I have stated in my own thread, Is light real, I believe that light is a phenomenon that is produced by the brain of living creatures. Photons and radiation are parcels of energy that travel from their source and land on a detector/converter this is known as the eye. The energy is then received by the brain and perceived as light. My best example of this being true is the fact that when we dream we see light the light in our dreams come from the brain the only instrument capable of producing this vision of light. The skin can feel intense radiation but only the brain its self can see it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What Is The Nature Of Photons & EM Radiation?

As I have stated in my own thread, Is light real, I believe that light is a phenomenon that is produced by the brain of living creatures. Photons and radiation are parcels of energy that travel from their source and land on a detector/converter this is known as the eye. The energy is then received by the brain and perceived as light. My best example of this being true is the fact that when we dream we see light the light in our dreams come from the brain the only instrument capable of producing this vision of light. The skin can feel intense radiation but only the brain its self can see it.

A camera can record light even when no one is seeing it.
Do you think microwave doesn't exist because no one can see it?

[Just thinking]

A camera can record light even when no one is seeing it.

The camera monitor projects the energy to our eyes them our brain see,s the image. There is no light in the camera only stored information waiting to be emitted from the monitor just as all photons are projected/emitted by the source of the energy. A camera is a device that can store and emit photons.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A camera can record light even when no one is seeing it.

The camera monitor projects the energy to our eyes them our brain see,s the image. There is no light in the camera only stored information waiting to be emitted from the monitor just as all photons are projected/emitted by the source of the energy. A camera is a device that can store and emit photons.

Depending on the camera type, the information from light can be stored in photosensitive film or flash drive, etc.

Do you think microwave doesn't exist because no one can see it?

Do you exclude infrared and ultraviolet light?

[Just thinking]

Depending on the camera type, the information from light can be stored in photosensitive film or flash drive, etc.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on Today at 17:58:48

    Do you think microwave doesn't exist because no one can see it?

Do you exclude infrared and ultraviolet light?

the photosensitive film has the image produced by the photons of different intensity reacting with the chemicals on the film just like a portrait artist creating a painting. Microwaves and ultraviolet radiation can be seen with the aid of equipment that is designed to detect this frequency as our eyes are not designed to work at that range. We humans make it possible to see and do things with the aid of technology that our bodies cant do alone.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As I have stated in my own thread, Is light real, I believe that light is a phenomenon that is produced by the brain of living creatures.

Ancient humans can't detect microwave or ultraviolet light. Their brains didn't produce phenomena of light in those frequencies. Your statement implies that they didn't exist back then.

[Just thinking]

Ancient humans can't detect microwave or ultraviolet light. Their brains didn't produce phenomena of light in those frequencies. Your statement implies that they didn't exist back then.

I never thought of that so I must be wrong thank you for that insight.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you think that light is already well understood using our currently accepted model, just watch this video.

 

The super bizarre quantum eraser experiment

The quantum eraser experiment is one of the weirdest phenomena that has ever been observed.  It seems that quantum mechanics mixes past and future together.  In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don take you through this quantum conundrum.

[Just thinking]

If you think that light is already well understood using our currently accepted model, just watch this video.

No this is just it I have my own theory of just what light is I think light is not well understood.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you think that light is already well understood using our currently accepted model, just watch this video.

No this is just it I have my own theory of just what light is I think light is not well understood.

I wasn't addressing you specifically. Otherwise, I would have mentioned you or quote your previous statement.

[Just thinking]

I wasn't addressing you specifically. Otherwise, I would have mentioned you or quote your previous statement.

Apologies for the misunderstanding. I watched the video and found it very interesting all the split experiments are fascinating light never disappoints.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The super bizarre quantum eraser experiment

The video shows that the experiment gives unexpected result. So, there must be some false assumptions involved somewhere.
I suspect that one of them is unjustified simplification of the experimental setup. E.g. how can macroscopic beam splitters split a single photon into two identical photons? How many times can they be split in cascade? How much energy is carried by each split photons? Do the beam splitters affect the frequency?
How actually did they detect which way the photon goes?

[Just thinking]

The video shows that the experiment gives unexpected result.

At this point I am clueless as to what is happening with the experiment it takes a lot of mind power to even try to comprehend.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here is a link given in video description.
https://medium.com/@josephjake01/did-the-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser-experiment-break-causality-cd0ee999348d

Which-Way Information
One variation of the two-slit experiment tries to detect which slit the photon traveled through. A which-way double-slit experiment. Pretty self-explanatory right?
But, placing a detector right before the double-slit causes a double band on the sheet instead of the interference pattern. The photon acted as a particle instead of a wave as expected.
Somehow the act of observation forced the wavefunction to collapse and become a particle. It’s almost as if the universe is shy and freaks out when someone tries to detect its true nature.

Here we can see a problem. It's as if the writer never really perform the experiment himself. A double band pattern on the screen is only possible if the width of the slits are large enough so diffraction effect is insignificant. But it means that there would be no observable interference effect even if no detector was placed right before the double slit.